More "miscellany" (General)

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 13, 2022, 15:27 (7 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I thought ID-ers had been using maths to show that Darwin’s random mutations theory was impossible:
The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution | The ...
QUOTE: “…the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion!”

dhw: My point is that they are equating mutation with randomness, and totally ignoring the possibility that mutations are NOT random but are guided by the intelligence of the cells that make up the organism. Everything depends on the mechanism that produces speciation, and that is unknown. I don’t know what maths are used by Darwinists.

Snatching disparate pieces of ID are confusing you. I know the reference which attacks Darwin by using randomness only. Both sides use the same maths is my only point n ow.

Evolution - Loss of traits

DAVID: It is not new gens pushing out old. It is disappearance of genes creating new adaptations.

dhw: With this response, you have totally ignored the reason for this dispute, which is the claim that loss of genes causes the “advances” in evolution. I gave you an example of how loss of genes might be the result of adaptation (an organism going blind because it takes up residence in the dark) and challenged your argument that the advances which result in innovation and speciation were caused by loss of genes. You simply ignored the fact that innovation requires restructuring of existing genes and/or the production of new genes. I have suggested that when these are successful, they make some of the old genes redundant. Are you now saying that innovations and new species do not constitute advances, and that it is NOT logical that some old genes will then become redundant?

Your old innate Darwinism dies hard. In the examples currently given. genes simply disappear, and new adaptations appear. Your form of change also happens.

These produce new combinations of genes.

QUOTES: Furthermore, many of our traditional genes are now understood to descend from the good-old run-of-the-mill retroviral gag, pol, or env genes that were co-opted for a new use.”
“This implies that our brains, and likely our bodies as well, are significantly mosaic in the sense that neighboring cells of much the same putative phenotype can have notably different genome architectures due to opportune transposition events.”

dhw: More evidence for you that existing genes take on new functions. So why do you argue that advances are caused “simply” by loss of genes?

Read answer above

First big game hunting
QUOTE: Ancient humans were regularly butchering animals for meat 2 million years ago. This has long been suspected, but the idea has been bolstered by a systematic study of cut marks on animal bones.
The find cements the view that ancient humans had become active hunters by this time, contrasting with earlier hominins that ate mostly plants.

dhw: Clearly they were already using tools. Killing and cutting up animals would have been a huge advance at the time, and would, I suggest, have been one of the causes of brain expansion in our ancestors.

DAVID: And I would explain: more use for existing brain's present capacity which complexified a small region to handle the new use.

dhw: I was not referring to sapiens brains but to those of the earlier homos who invented tools and weapons, my proposal being that such inventions required the expansion of their brains. When we came up with our wonderful new ideas and inventions, the new brain complexified instead of expanding.

How do you know all prior earlier brains couldn't simply complexify. I'll bet they did based on how evolution works, latter functions based on older ones.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum